how is that going to be resolved? >> were the reasons that i'm a little bit more optimistic than brick is, is that as governor and mayor, i took advantage of crises. there's an old saying in politics. nothing better for opportunity than a political crisis. you take it and you run with it. there are certain things people except in a crisis environment that they won't necessarily except when things are going well. which include fiscal cliff gives us those looming crisis, and it is an impetus for getting things done. it is an impetus, but also in this. i don't know how many of you or your ceos are present when i cochairman, greg, and i look in washington. bob zoellick is a member of our board. he said that the u.s. is one dead deal away from cementing

his place as the world leading economic power to the next 25 years. he is absolutely right. the opportunity is there. the crisis is there. if we get some leadership, i think we can do it. you know, rick says congress mostly has followers. that is true. it would be nice to have -- although i think that senator toomey has been a leader on this issue. convincing him is never easy, but if he were convinced, he would leave and get things done and he would leave some of the more interesting prospects. it may not be 100%. but if i could play one thing in the senate and house cloakrooms, it would be the rolling stones song, you can't always get what you want. >> all right. this is a discussion about regulatory issues. we have spent the day talking about legal reforms.

it is fairly easy that one level talks about budgets because there are numbers involved. you can see that the data showing that its exchange rate on sprint how do you get people to tune in? >> regulations and laws. that is why i think we have been talking about this regulatory environment that somehow or another, it is just regulations. the problem that we see and that i see in the business community and that i hear all the time is this administration moving forward with regulations that are inconsistent with the underlying law. an advisory that is inconsistent and implementation of regulations that are inconsistent with what congress intended and what the law is. i can point out a whole bunch of them. work requirements for welfare. it is very clear. i was the lead sponsor of the bill and i was the floor manager. there was no waiver capability for the work requirement.

what that does is create uncertainty. the government says i am going to do it, go ahead and sue me, but i'm going to do this. you have a fundamental problem in america. that is much of the problem, as the volume of regulations we have seen. volume costly regulations is that many of these costly regulations. many are consistent with the underlying law that was passed by congress. i can't imagine anyone who voted for the clean air act would've suggested that was something that was covered under the definition when it asked that bill. this is really the overall issue

here. it is really government run amok because the president is incapable of getting any of this stuff through the congress. you have a president who is going to do this on his own. the media is certainly not going to go out there and hammer him for doing these things. they agree with what he wants to do, so they let him get away with it. it is up to conservatives to try to go out and make that case to a public that is unaffected directly. it is really the business community that has to bear the brunt of this. of the regulatory system. it is a tough environment if we are stuck for four more years, this president is not going to

get better on the regulatory side. he's going to get worse. he is going to be much more aggressive than us. he fell back off and won't hold back on anymore. and he won't leave the congress because he will do it on his own. the leadership may provide fiscal issues, if the economy continues to grow at 1% or 1.4% and i don't care what kind of deal you put together, you are not going to close the deficit gap and then will the economy be hurt even more under this regulatory breaks that the president has put us in. that is my biggest concern with obama presidency. with respect to trying to solve the budget crisis, he is going to do so much more damage with obamacare being implemented. taxes going up because of the bush tax cuts being expired and more regulatory aggressiveness

on his part. this economy is just going to crumble. >> ec regulatory issues that lay? >> well, we don't have enough time. [laughter] into the american public, the federal government uses too many regulations. absolutely. if you go in and talk to the public about the compelling parts of spending, should we spend less money on education -- no, that is her kids future. people with spending cuts or for her, but almost every individual spending cut. regulations spell out a number

of regulations that they would change. during debates and other people have asked him to give them an idea of some regulations and they don't get specific. why? because most regulations are targeted. i will agree with rick that often regulations may exceed the power and often regulations are targeted, but they don't do more good than harm. having said that, you don't want to be against the regulation that protects the quality of the air. because there is a soccer mom who has a 5-year-old kid that has asthma, and the last thing she wants is bad stuff going into the air exacerbating the kids asthma. it is a strange political issue. now, what i think has to happen.

assume president obama wins. i think that the business community and the president have try again. i think that they have to sit down and go over the whole bunch of issues. i don't think that the president is going to go hog wild with over regulations. i figure he can get a dialogue going with the business community again, he still has some sense of the business community, if you can get that going and he can get that going again, you think you could work with us to try to fix this? i think that the answer would be yes. number two, some regulations are good for business. i don't know how many of you represent companies or do legal work for companies. but when i was governor of

pennsylvania, the gas them started. in 2007, we had 72 shell gas wells. the shale gas boom took off. there were problems at the beginning. there were literally explosions that lit up the sky and poured burning materials on the houses nearby. there were cases where the water which gives materials that are harmful with something to pennsylvania waterways without being properly cleaned. i ran through and we literally ran through the legislature, construction regulation that have very strict guidelines. any regulation that said you have to clean cracking water to the level of acceptable

standards under the clean drinking water act. companies were smart enough not to push back on this. we have had no real problems with shale gas tapwater spoiling any waterway with any construction or any problems. regulations sometimes can be the friend of business, too. if there is a deregulated area. the deletion problems, the goose gets killed really quickly. >> we ask on any industry or any company and say do they need more regulation, the answer is overwhelmingly yes. however, if we say, if you give people an alternative would you rather see this company held accountable for this industry held accountable by competition, they generally prefer competition, which really gets them the trade-offs that you're talking about. there has to be some explanation. if you don't explain how someone

will be held accountable. the assumption is you really are just trying to get out from under. on the spending side come by the way, i do have to say that there are a number of spending cuts that people do support that you have to lift the issue at a big enough level to talk about. liberals say that we spend too much, and conservatives say that we spend too little and moderates say that it is just about right. if you ask, should we remove this from western europe and japan, most americans say yes, we should do that. that is a big issue that is worthy of having a national discussion about this. when you talk about the bird or something else, that is not a serious discussion. rick, i know you don't like the idea of taking troops out of westerner. i don't know that, but is foreign policy and issue at all in the selection? >> i don't think it has been

much of an issue in this campaign. i think president obama wants foreign policy to be a slogan. i thought bin laden, let's move on. and he really doesn't want to drill into the various areas around the world. and i think the governor romney clearly from the other night does not want foreign policy to be much of an issue. he went after president bush had plenty of opportunities and he chose not to do so. he has the knowledge and demeanor to be commander in chief and i think that governor romney wants the campaign to be about the economy. he brought it back to the economy and brought it back to barack obama's record. that is where they want to be. the president is looking at the mess around the world and doesn't want to talk about it. he wants to talk about getting bin laden. as a result, i think foreign

policy has taken very much of a backseat. as we all know, the most important issue the president has to deal with, print and the president have an impact on economy? yes. can have an impact on fiscal situation? yes or in any significant way. but he is the sole player by and large on national security issues, and i don't think that we have a particularly good idea from this campaign of the differences between the two candidates as to their vision for america around the world and what they would do in a lot of these countries. i think that we have a situation in the middle east which is a serious one. mitt romney is right. a nuclear iran is the number one threat to the stability of the middle east. and also to our security as well. at least from my perspective, there wasn't a real clear difference between governor

romney and president obama on the issue of what to do now. other than get a little tougher. in my opinion, that is not going to work. iran is going to get a nuclear weapon and they will keep moving forward. they have made that very clear. what are you going to do about it? i don't know that either candidate has come forward and laid out what they are going to do and whether there would be a red line. bob schieffer did a bad job not asking that question are as to if they did this, you'd say, okay, you cross the line, now we are going to have to stop you. benjamin netanyahu has asked for it, but neither candidate has said what they're going to do. russia and china, all of these different very different countries than they were four years ago and they have aspirations of what they're trying to do and influence the region and change things. one of the reasons i don't think we should pull our troops out of japan and western europe. we made a deal with the japanese and germans that they demilitarize and they will be there to make sure that the more

hostile neighbors won't think expansion stops. i don't think we want a militarized germany and i don't think we want a militarized japan. i don't think that is a good thing for the world. these are kind of conversations that i just don't think that we have. people do care about our national security, but certainly has not been highlighted. >> we have one more question and then we will take your questions. this is about the poisonous political environment that we had.

they voted whoever was in charge, they didn't like republicans when you're and hope somebody would improve it. senator john leslie said that the role of the christian -- how do we get back to environment like that? >> he would contact me a lot when i was governor, to vote for this or help with this, and i would say no most of of the time. i'm glad what i did find is that there were times when i do my work together and we did. we did so in a way that benefited the state in the country. i wasn't for ed in any of my

races. my job was to make sure that ed was the best governor that we could have in pennsylvania. that is my state and that is my city. and we have worked together on things. if it was really important that whoever was to disagree without being disagreeable and work together for the betterment of our common enterprise. i know that i have a reputation of being a hard charger and strong conservative and fighting for the things that i belong to. but i have a pretty good record of success with getting a lot of things done. you don't do that unless you work with the other side of the

senate you can't make that happen. i think there is something to be said for barbara boxer nine. we fought like cats and dogs and i can't even tell you how many issues. but some of the biggest legislative accomplishments -- i felt that it barbara boxer and i agreed on something, everybody else would. [laughter] >> so if i could get her, by and large they did compromise. we have to start looking at the idea of trying to move the ball instead of digging in and thinking the other side is bad people. they are misguided, but they are not that. [laughter] >> that is what i said about eagle stamps, but that is all right. [laughter] >> well, he is an evil stamped. [laughter]

>> we disagreed on a lot of issues, but whenever i called rick santorum, he allowed me to make my case and make his judgment accordingly. rick santorum was great at getting those dollars and bringing them home. >> i stopped talking about that. what was so good for economic development. he received the endorsement against bob casey who always had a good reputation. it was done solely on projects that were good for pennsylvania.

it will also on how we do on the debt and deficit. that is going to be the first thing, the fiscal cliff is there, the pressure in the business community, the campaign has $35 million from the business community already. in part impart to the public relations campaign almost immediately after the election to get the american people thinking about it. and then in part to save some money to help senators or congressmen who may have had that. [inaudible] let's just say that the people that showed some leadership on simpson-bowles, they prevailed with strong presidential leadership and this gets done.

the pivot off about, and he say to everybody, everything has been successively done. you bring everyone in a week later and say, you know what? what we did. you dealt with the greatest challenges and we did it with accepting less than what we wanted and taking a little bit of a hit by sharing sacrifice. can we do that on energy? can we do that on education? can we figure out what each side wants and try to get a little bit of it so we can move forward? i think that is good and will prevail. folks, it is going wrong very quickly. i will give you the most shocking statistic to make this point. van jones leah and scalia it was confirmed

by the senate 97 to nothing. ruth bader ginsburg was confirmed by the senate 94 to three. it wasn't so long ago when we voted not on ideological polarization, we voted that scalia and ginsburg were great voters and legal scholars that deserve to be on the court because of their scholarship and their character. how did they get so wrong so fast? we talk about polarization, but the three most important achievements of the bush administration, the most important changes, war, the iranian border, medicare part a.

almost every democrat voted two thirds. ted kennedy was president bush's -- he sponsored the bill. 1020. that was seven or eight years ago. i believe men and women of good will get together and see something work. >> i would make the argument that the reason it got so bad, president obama started out in his term. he had a super majority in the house and senate, and he was

never able to change the way he governed. he was able to get a lot of stuff there without having to work for republicans because they have the votes to do it. it is always easier to get things done and try to reach out to folks on the other side and have to talk to people on the far edge of the party. >> you can forgive president obama because the day he was making his inaugural address, it was a meeting of 15 leading republicans trying to figure out the situation. and mitch mcconnell who deserves a for policy and f for other things, no, senator, you're number one challenge is to try

to do things to fix things in this country. if you don't get that from you do not belong in the united states. the president obama responded that way, if you respond in that way, he has good reasons to respond in a way. >> we have any questions? >> [inaudible question] >> go ahead, sir. >> speaking of the senate, we have five senate seats. four leading republican seats on either side of that. give us your perspective. republicans were favored to win control of the u.s. senate. olympia snowe retired. then you had todd akin with his infamous comments in missouri, and right now, the democrats are favored to retain control.

the republicans would have to win to get control of the senate. if it was between scott brown and elizabeth warren, they would pick scott brown. the choice is between democrats controlling the senate and public's controlling the senate, that is a no-brainer in massachusetts. it is likely that scott brown will be defeated. in connecticut, she was ahead in the polls this summer. trailing in the last couple. i think that is a very tough race. the great state of indiana may also be going to a shakeup because of comments made. >> people might have missed that. >> okay, and the other thing

about this, if someone gets pregnant during a rape, that might be god's will. not a comment that was well received. >> it was by a republican senate candidate in indiana. who is ahead by were six points in the polls. >> yes, it was a horrible thing. but god let that happen. that is the thing that christians believe. that it's god's will and it's a horrible thing, but that is sometimes something that happens. bad things happen. somehow god wants people to be raped -- a complete mischaracterization of that comment. >> is a fair clarification. it is also a politically fueled common. >> i understand that. and as he tells us, in the

middle of the debate were you don't say exactly how you say what you say -- i know it is real. but it seems to be, in my opinion, favored on one side or the other. >> one other comment. for virginia, george allen is running three or four points behind mitt romney in the polls. right now we actually show romney with a slight lead in the state. i know where it ends up, but i think that's pretty permanent. yes, sir? >> yes, have a question regarding polarization. how much do you think the so-called campaign-finance reform, which took a lot of power away from the parties, and also the cable networks have contributed to the polarization or fragmentation of the public and created some of this difficulty in getting along? >> yes, very much so.

the 24/7 cable tv and talk radio drives the extremes of both parties, it beats the extremes of both parties. we had a great congressman in pennsylvania who rick knows, and i think he admired. he was a conservative democrat, a blue dog democrat. but a great guy. he was wonderful to work with. he lost a trial. he was a trial lawyer that was much more crisp and 10 aggressive. but tim should've never lost. he was one of the most valuable democrats of having congress. he lost. dick lugar would be wiping the floor with our democratic candidate in indiana. he would be ahead by 15 points. the republican base is not. they keep electing people --

>> the republican base reported rick santorum? >> no, they keep taking certain -- the keep snatching certain defeat and victory, and opening it up for election. it happened in delaware, it happened in nevada. ..

>> we have a rule in pennsylvania you can take as much money as you want as long as you disclose it publicly and everything. those folks,88 people, spending an excess of $2500, were going to spend that money, but you now know because it was spent given to him, and you know who they are for rather than giving to a group that has a funny name you forget after the next election and have them have the power to elect to unelect the next president or united states senators. it is a horrible system. we need to get rid of all of these ridiculous restrictions on contributions and let the american public give as transparently and openly, and let the candidates have the control of the races again

instead of all of the outside groups having more influence, spending more money than the candidate's committees themselves. >> one other factor i think should be included in this is the primary system we have today. when john kennedy ran for president, he took part in five primaries. >> right. >> the party leaders tried to seek consensus, a candidate to reach out more broadly. well, from 1920-1972, we had a landslide presidential election every year or every other year that built consensus letting the losing side know they lost. since we we want to an all nominate -- all primary systems, we have only had one landslide. >> i disagree. >> because you didn't hire a pollster. >> he's not going to say anything nice. i was the only one who didn't hire a pollster for the campaign. the reason is because the

country's changed fundamentally. when the country is divided, i think the country -- there was much more consensus in america about what america is and the direction we should go 50-60 years ago than there is today. i think there's differences reflected in the political parties. it's being reflected in what now both sides call "extreme." they are not. they are just different visions for what america should be. what our role should be in the world. what the role of government should be in our lives. what the role of faith should be. these are fundmental issues that are very different points of views so the idea when tip and ronald reagan got a beer together, they had a common set of values. that is not as much the case today. as a result, you're seeing that -- politics does not lead the country. it is a reflection of the country. when we say very different types

of people elected and nominated by the party, it's because that's where america is. i would make the argument that is not going to change unless we see leadership in events that happen -- may be economic, culture, a lot of things, who knows, to get people to come together saying, wait a minute, we have to figure out who we are, what we're doing, and get on the same track. right now, i believe we are not. >> the candidate made a comment about public opinion or the nation leading the change, and that is the way change takes place in america. on december 1st, 1955, rosa parks refused to give up a seat in montgomery, alabama. that did not create the civil rights movement. it was a cor courageous act, but public opinion changed before that to enable king to take a leadership role and guide the change. the reason we know public opinion changed # first is

because parks did the exact same thing 12 years earlier, and nothing happened. in between, african-american soldiers came back from world war ii, southern women started schooling up north, had a different set of views, jackie robertson played baseball. when the culture changed, the political process caught up, and it took a catalyst, like parks, to spark the change. right now, we're in the moment where public opinion is ahead of the political leadership waiting for the catalyst and that leader. >> when you talk about locking into thoughts and ideologies, that's true, but on the other hand, every poll shows people want our elected officials to compromise and get things done, and by a huge number, overwhelming. that's the message. >> sure. one more question. >> i'm accompanying state representative ed miller from

texas, and respectfully, i have to let you know that you and frank and carl rove and dick are responsible for turning my mother who is 72 years old in rural georgia into a pollster. she's like, mom, i have obama up by three. it's within a margin of error. mom, do you know what a margin of error is? [laughter] where are you in the industry at hurdling the response rate obstacle where people exist in the land lines, hard mail, post office, ipads, cell phones. >> first off, i'm not in favor of federal mandates. everybody should be required to have a land line and answer when we call. [laughter] this year has been remarkable. there's a reporter calling me from ohio saying people in the

street talk about, well, was that poll sampled d plus 3 or d plus 7? the intensity of discussion on polls this year is incredible. on the general topic of polling in terms of how to follow all of the information out this, what i tell people is to look for the common ground in all the polls. i think you should look at ours every morning at 9:30 on the website to get a good start to the day, but check out every other poll. you see consistency, not a lot of difference. you see the polls showing mitt romney doing better since the first debate, a competitive rate, same swing states, and president below the mark. tell your mother that's a good way to analyze her sense of where the race is. the questions about response rates and everything else. five years from now, there's no phone polling. we are in a circumstance where the industry does not know what

it's going to look like. many of you are old enough to remember, as i do when my grandmother said, shhhh, it's long distance. that's how we communicated. we'd talk for a long time on the phone. i have two boys who don't know you can talk on a cell phone. thinking it's for texting or tweeting. they don't talk on their phone. pollsters have to communicate with people on facebook, twitter, social media applications. we can call people over 50 for a few more years, but that's it. this is the last presidential election dominated by telephone polling, and if any of you figure out the correct model, please, let me know because we're all looking for it. just on a serious note, the way pollsters work is we experiment so at the end of election night this year, my firm goes over

every poll conducted, look what went right, wrong, try to understand and create a better model. when the next election comes, we'll take a look at some testing we've done this year. we're doing polls this year entirely without phones to see how they work. we'll learn from those. in 2013, they have practice years for us running races in new jersey and virginia so we can tweak our polling models before going into 2014, and i would expect in the next two to three election cycles, you will see more surprises from the polls than you've seen in a very long time. >> thank you very much. big hand for senator rick santorum and governor ed rendell. [applause] >> thank you so much. it's a testimonies -- testament to how well the pam did and how interesting it is now 5:39, and they are all still

in the room. let's close out the day and say thank you to all our panelists, our moderators, but most importantly, i want to thank all of you, our guests and our supporters, who came today and stuck it out from 8:45 this morning. it was just a wonderful day, a lot of great issues, a lot of great topics. we'll stay in touch. i invite everybody next door to the networking reception, and we will pull for the prizes in ten minutes as soon as everybody's in there and gets a drink. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> up next the texas senate debate between cruz and tom saddler. they are competing for the seat vacated by hutchenson. this debate is curtesy of kratv

in dallas is just under an hour. >> moderator: this is the texas debate race for u.s. senate broadcasting live from the studios in dallas and online at texasdebates.org. i'm shelly, and during the hour, i'm the moderator for the final debate between republican ted cruz, former solicitor general from texas and democrat tom sadler from henderson. welcome, gentlemen, and welcome to the colleagues and panelists. they are peggy, chief for the san antonio express news and pedro, news anchor and reporter for univision in houston. we invite you to join the conversation on twitter. we're going to begin by diving into some important policy issues tonight beginning with

the concern that many texans put at the top of their list. >> a lot of people come for a better way of living. by coming here, they should stay here if they can abide by just the simple laws of, you know, no stealing, not doing anything crime worthy. >> children of immigrants, ill illegal immigrants should be allowed to say, but the others deported. >> they broke the law by coming. they are illegal and should go home. >> working at the jobs we don't want to work at with a pay we don't want. legalize them and collect their income tax. >> moderator: okay. we'll start the discussion on immigration from peggy going to mr. sadler. >> how would you address the 1.6 million or more undocumented in texas now.

mr. sadler, you want to give them a route to legal status. how would that work exactly? sadler: as a state, it's important to deal with the issue. if we don't start dealing with it, ten years from now, we'll be arguing about it. we have a rich, diverse culture. what i said is that we have to, obviously, secure the border. we ought to pass the dream act, do a temporary work permit so we know who is here and they participate as the gentleman described on the screen. there should be a reasonable way to citizenship at the back of the line. put, really, whatever restrictions we want as long as they are reasonable. speak english, not have committed a crime, been here for a sufficient amount of time. these things help us move past this because our strength in our state is our diversity. nobody's giving amnesty. they have to earn the right to be an american citizen. we need to get past this because our state's too important to be

divided. >> mr. cruz, you want to strengthen the border, ensure status. how does that affect the people already here without documents? will they just go away? cruz: immigration is a situation to address from many issues at once. we live in a nation of immigrants, a land that's been a beacon of hope and opportunity to people from all over the world, and i think immigration reform needs to address illegal immigration and legal immigration with. with respect to illegal immigration, as a matter of national security and law enforcement priority, we have to be serious about securing the borders. both parties, to be honest, talked about the issue for a long time, but i don't think either party is serious about fixing it, but interesting in demagoguing, scaring voters, than they are in rolling up the sleeves, getting serious about securing the borders.

>> can you specify how you address the people who are here? securing the boarders prevent more people from coming, but there's 1.6 million people or more already here. what would we do with them? cruz: a staged approach. the first stage is getting through the talk, securing the border, fences, walls, technology, boots on the ground, tripling the number of border patrol agents so we can actually know who's coming in the country. i think we have to combine that with a strong e-verify system that is legal and requires you to get a job. we need a rational conversation about immigration, streamline and improve legal immigration. we can't have that conversation until we demonstrate we secure the borders. >> in the meantime, the people will be here. any plans of dealing with them

or something to be worked out later? cruz: the first step is secure the borders, once we solve that problem, we can have a rational conversation about what are the labor needs, the demands, and who wants to come here and improve the system where people wait years or decades to come here legally. i think as a practice call matter, we're not able to get that done until we get past all the talking and actually show we can secure the borders. >> following up on that, do you think you're out of step with your republican party? you know, in the state republican platform, it has a guest work program, but the republican party supported at the convention this summer, and you don't support that? cruz: my views are consistent with that of texas. i spent the past two years traveling across the state listening to texas, listening to the concerns raised, and the two pieces, only in the political world this stuff is complicated.

for most americans, they are # concerned about a border not secure. they are concerned about the fact that we don't know the criminal history or the background of those coming into the country, particularly in a a post-9/11 world. that doesn't make sense. at the same time, it is important and my message from day one in the campaign is we should continue to be a nation that welcomes and celebrates immigrants. i'm the child of an immigrant who came here with nothing. >> moderator: thank you very much. i have not heard a plan to join with the people already here. do they just not get dealt with? cruz: i don't think we should grant amnesty, but to have a discussion on this is start by securing the border. you know, it's interesting -- >> moderator: because we've given you a lot of time, do you want to add anything? sadler: deal with the people here through the work permit identifying who is here, makes them here without running in the shadows, participate in the program through taxes.

when the permit's up, it's time to go home or wherever they came from or apply for citizenship, but if they qualify, but to do nothing leaves us where we are, and to secure the border, can i simply comment on that for a second? >> moderator: sure. sadler: i walked the border around el paso outside the fence, depending on which way you look, and i asked what surveillance do we have here? we basically use vietnam era surveillance, and at fort bliss, they had a portion where we test and train the most surveillance equipment for the united states military, within a mild of the border. can you train our border patrol with this surveillance? absolutely, we could. we have the training and testing of the modern surveillance from the gulf of mexico.

why aren't we doing that? the answer is no one's asked us to. well, i did. it's important. >> moderator: thanks. we're going to move on to another subject, a topic involving immigration, and ross has that question. >> mr. cruz, letting cubans come here illegally, become legal, an opportunity not open to or immigrants from other countries. shamed we extend that to others? should cubans be held differently there? cruz. -- cruz: the situation in that country is different, oppressive, regime that tortures and murders its citizens and the united states, for centuries, has allowed a situation of the people seeking refugee status from political oppression and torture. it's not something for me in the ab straight. my father was imprisoned and tortured by batista and my aunt

was imprisoned on tortured by castro. i would love to be part of ending the cuban adjustment agent, and i think we can as soon as we don't have an o prosessive regime in cuba. if there's a regime that respects the rights of the citizens, doesn't persecute them, of course, we should change the rules, but until that happens, i think it makesceps to recognize the oppressive regime in cuba. >> imgrants from other countries to extend the same right to? cruz: it's been long standing immigration policy that for nations that are oppressive politically, people fearing persecution, we grant them refugee status, true for all nations all over the world. >> same question. sadler: it's wrapped into comprehensive immigration reform for our state. we need it for our nation. we do over a billion dollars of commerce between mexico and texas. the people coming from mexico here are seeking a better way of

life, seeking work, part of freedom, part of the american way of life, and i think it only makes sense we do with comprehensive immigration reform package that includes everyone. i think it's the only way we get past this moving forward, and the diversity of the state is so important, and the economic engine we have with the border of mexico, our number one trading partner, and yet we talk about building walls to divide communities, separate neighbors, increase border patrols. if you triple the agents, -- we do these things with people that are part of the community, part of the heritage, part of the history, and their family, and so i just simply think that we've had enough division on the issue, and i think those issues, the issues described with cuba

will weigh if we have a comprehensive immigration program. >> moderator: great. we'll move on to another question involving immigration from pedro to paul sadler. >> thank you, thank you, gentlemen, for being here with us tonight. president obama's fair action program gave hope to undocumented young people in the country now awaiting to get a legal status, if elected, what would you do? keep the program? eliminate it, what would you do? >> it's app executive order so i couldn't do anything about that, but i have said from the beginning that i support the dream act. if you talk to these young people here through no fault of their own, brought here with their families, raise the in the schools, as much american as my children other than they don't have a document. they walk the american way of life. we are america. did we can't see past giving them the chance at the american way of life, that's something wrong with us.

they deserve the opportunity. they've been in the system. many fought in the military, have gone to iraq and afghanistan and made promises, and it's not been delivered to them. this is a travesty for us, i think, as a state and nation, and so i would support the dream act. my concern about the executive order is that it can be taken away. now you have all of these young people who trusted us, trusted the president of the united states, identified themselves, given their identity, location, and if a new president comes in and takes the order away, have we jeopardized them. there's an issue there that's not right. they are innocent young people. >> mr. cruz, what would you do? endorse it or senator approved a republican version, but what's your view op that? cruz: i don't agree with what

president obama did on this because just a few months ago, six months ago, president obama was asked if he had the authority to do this, and his response six months ago was he had no constitutional authority to grant amnesty without changing federal immigration laws. as we were closer to the election, suddenly, the authority materialized. one of the reasons people come to the united states from all over the world is because we're a nation that respects rule of law. i don't think we should have a president who is setting aside the laws passed by congress and law, and i think this was an action contrary to law done for a political purpose immigration reform, if it proceeds, proceeds through congress, public debate, through the legislative process, and not through an abusive executive authority. >> thank you. >> moderator: thank you very much to everyone. we want to move on now and find

out how candidates deal with another important issue to voters who have strong opinions about the issue. it's the issue of the economy. >> there needs to be changes legally for big corporations to have some kind of incentive to stay in the country, to provide good employment for people >> if you can export jobs to a country where the rates are cheaper, you'll never maintain a good healthy job market in this country. >> for someone young like me, most important thing is jobs. the way to get jobs going is help small business. >> medicare and social security, those are not entitlements. i worked my butt off for years. that's my money, i deserve it, and that money should be there. >> reducing the federal debt, i want to know specifics on how they are going to do it. are they going to take it from medicare or create the tax burden on certain segment of the population? >> moderator: okay. we want to start the discussion on the economy by talking about

the federal debt, and what you both said is a top priority for you is reducing federal spending. as you know, entitlements make up 40% of the federal budget. you would, i think, have to certainly reduce cost of entitlements like medicare, which, as you know, many texans consider a right of theirs and count on it. mr. cruz, you want to cut costs giving medicare resip yes , ma'ams -- recipients a fixed amount of money, a voucher to buy the medicare. the cbo says this forces seniors to pick up the cost themselves as they, the vouchers, are less valuable. why gunge this is a good way to provide medicare to the seniors? cruz: first principles which is that social security and medicare are foundational

promises made to the seniors. our seniors paid into the programs. come to rely on it and expect it and we need to honor those promises. i think there's a real difference in national politics in how the politicians approach it. >> moderator: why is it a good idea? cruz: right now, social security and medicare are careening towards insolvency and bankruptcy, and democratic majority leader, harry reid and the democrats, are doing nothing to save the program. it's wreckless. they are not stepping program saying reform the programs so number one, we preserve every penny of benefits, and, two, reform the programs so they remain viable for the next generations retiring. that's what i think we should do. paul ryan >> moderator: tock about the vouchers if you could.

cruz: it's not just a voucher. what it does is preserves every penny of benefits for existing seniors, and then for younger people -- i'm 41, people of my generation, it provides two options. one, stay with traditional medicare, get the same benefit they get now, or, two, have the choice of premium support enabling them to purchase a policy in the private market place. ..

and i will point out beyond that, beyond premium support the law bipartisan history of the number of prominent democrats have supported previously and it's only been in the past couple of years coincidently read about the time it presidential race has have been emmett romney and powell were wearing where the nominees they unified and get demagoguing bishop of the problem is they don't have an alternative. when you s. president obama and you ask harry reid how do you save medicare that i have an answer and in fact president obama took $718 billion out of medicare to fund obamacare which is going backwards. >> moderator: let's ask mr. sadler about this. what changes would you make a medicare to cut costs because clearly we need to save some money. sadler: thank you for asking that we don't have the same program. we have to make hard decisions to keep them and we can keep

them for all of us. this doesn't promise we made. there was a promise we made that we wouldn't be readable to retire in our sig seniors would live with dignity and have hospitalization coverage. social security is a pretty easy fix. it really is. there are three options. when you can raise the cap currently that we use to apply texas to. $106,000 worth of income you pay social security taxes on that amount and if you make above that amount you don't. you pay a reduced rate because your increases greater. >> moderator: we talk about medicare to please? sadler: i will. when social security was form 90% of income was in in the system in the system and instruct and 83%. if we could go back to the original framework we had a decade and a half of social security and there are simple things we can do. to save social security for all of us. medicare's more difficult.

we don't have a good answer for how to deal with rising health care costs. if the most competitive market in the world and we have health care costs going through the roof. one of the things that the affordable care act does in combination with what we have seen and medicare and how that modifies medicare as it tries for the very first time to tether those two things together with the cap on the growth of health care costs and what sustains and extends the life of medicare and the affordable care does that. does extend the life of medicare. >> moderator: do you see any cuts he would propose, any services you would reduce or you would allow it to continue as is? sadler: within that act there are cuts on things like administrative costs, salaries, things for the providers but it maintains the benefit involved. and so, those are the things that matter, okay? now the $760 million that are cut to the providers, it's one

of the things that concerns me. are we going to make those cuts too soon, too fast where they are no longer willing to participate? we will have to monitor that but in the program we enacted it requires that type of watching the future making sure plays out right and it works correctly. but the fact is that the affordable care act -- thank you. >> moderator: thank you very much. moving on what we got out of this is you do support very different plans here for how we would approach this. we are going to move now to another question from ross and this one goes to mr. sadler. >> i want to talk about the bush tax cuts. you said everything should be on the table including letting the bush tax cuts expire in them improving -- including letting the bush tax cuts expire for the middle-class. is that a good idea? cruz: i am not sure i explained it as well as i could celeb me

try again. our national debt of $16 trillion. the national debt is the responsibility is of all of us as americans and i absolutely hate the debate we are having in this country today because we are writing tax policy based on which political party and which which constituency were in. the national debt was created whenever -- it's an obligation of all of us in the tax policy is between one american versus another. it's the responsibility of all of us. we have to cut spending and we have to balance our budget. even if we do that we may eliminate the deficit in some period of time the future. not while we.while we are stilln afghanistan. we have to pay down the national debt and it requires more than that. you can balance the budget by cutting spending and pay down that national debt and you don't have to raise revenue. what i tried to say is when you do that we need to have an approach that is a shared

responsibility and shared sacrifice. that doesn't mean that you do all of them at once. >> moderator: please summarize. we are running a little behind here because we are getting answers that we need to be more succinct. sadler: you may not do them all at once but they need to be in the table and we need to discuss them. i don't like the idea that we are pitting one american against the other. cruz: the cdo the congressional budget office has estimated that letting the bush tax cuts expire on those making over $250,000 would provide enough money in and of itself to avoid the fiscal cliff that everybody's talking about. he said you said you want the tax cuts, the bush tax cuts to expire. with the country be better off with those cuts in place than to pay out these obligations?

we have $2.3 trillion in

revenue. you're not going to pay down that national debt by simply cutting spending. you can't do it. no one with any intelligence has come to that conclusion. we have to at some point in time in the future raise revenue to pay down our national debt. if you truly are conservative and concern -- can i finish my statement please? if you're truly concerned about the future of our children and the future of this country and we think the national debt is a problem then that there's a shared responsibility of every american to do it. >> shelley can i jump in? this is the most important subject we are covering. >> moderator: so everybody here knows we will allow you to answer this is singly and we'll take one more question on the economy and move on. go ahead. cruz: i agree with mr. sadler that we do not solve our national debt sympathetic cutting spending. the only way to solve our national debt is through revenue. the most disturbing figure for the a bomb administration is

1.5. that is what our economy has grown in the last three and half years and we need to be progressively pro-growth. in the last seven years we averaged 3.3%. if we bring growth up to historical levels that is how we raise revenue. that is how we turn around deficits and that's how we turn around the debt. that's how they get 23 million people out of work back to work. >> moderator: let me ask you something real quickly. at the risk of taking us longer than others thought we should perhaps but if you were to eliminate the income tax for the highest wage earners, the families in the households making $250,000 to cbo estimates by doing that for fun you would avoid the fiscal cliff. you would not be in the position we are in now having to wonder whether we will have automatic cuts in january. why is that not a solution? cruz: because we kill jobs. we talk to texans all over the state and the issue we hear over and over guinness jobs in the

economy. we have killed 700,000 jobs to raise taxes on entrepreneurs. how do you get growth going? we have historical precedent to look to. the two best places to get growth going are regulatory reform, scaling back the abusive regulations from this administration that are hurting small businesses and tax reform. that is how we create jobs. sadler: that is not history that is current and not the history that is correct. the last time we turned a deficit into a surplus we raise taxes and we kept spending and we had an enormous job growth. we cannot grow your way out of this. no one has understood this debt problem is saying you consent to grow the economy and get out of it. senator coburn or any intelligence person that is looked at this. the numbers are simply too great. we can be honest about this and be honest with each other as

americans or we can keep on doing the same political answers over and over again. and keep digging a deeper hole. >> moderator: very quickly would you cut -- to which you the taxes or would would you maa tax cut for the highest income earners? sadler: i'm not sure you do that in december that the fiscal cliff in the national debt, the deficit a national debt are different issues. they are two different issues entirely. the plan to reduce the national debt anytime into the future. to avoid the fiscal cliff in the deficit and that kind of spending is balancing our budget. that's the most immediate in my opinion. what i'm saying to people and we have been articulating this if you are serious about reducing the national debt in the future, close in the future we will have to put some kind of plan in place. it should be a shared responsibility of all of us. we are going to take this revenue and start paying down our national debt.

>> moderator: real quickly the highest wage earners? sadler: i'm not going to split middle-class and wealthy. when america was attacked on september 11 we were all attacked and we all have this responsibility. cruz: there are two ways to go after the debt. you cannot cut spending and try to jack up taxes. the problem is that does not work. we have tried that. the other way you can do it is cut spending and enact progrowth policy that encourages and allow small businesses to create jobs. i'm proud to be supported by the national federation of employment. >> moderator: we are having a good discussion about jobs and we want to continue talking about jobs. >> in july the republicans in the house -- for those companies sending jobs overseas. would you have voted for that?

cruz: my view in terms of deductions is we should dramatically simplify the tax code and on the mental tax reform is one of the things i'm optimistic that next year in the next couple of years we will have the potential or real bipartisan cooperation to lower our marginal rates and make deductions. right now $500 billion a year is spent just on tax on lawyers and accountants and wasted expense complying with their tax code. that is about the same amount as their entire defense budget. if we simplify the tax code and by the way historically some of the greatest examples of bipartisan cooperation have been taxed the vacation weather under john f. kennedy, or under ronald reagan were use of both parties come together. lower margin the raids broaden the base and that is how you get growth going. it should be our top priority. >> that was called raising

taxes. and let me finish. if you lower the rate and broaden the base and to generate the same amount of revenue and you say you're going to close loopholes, loopholes are -- for some entity that wants them. you are requiring that entity to pay more in taxes and you are raising taxes. mr. romney is raising taxes and mr. obama's going to raise taxes and so are you. you all are. we try to close loopholes and exemptions and deductions in the property tax rates and every business group in the state said you are raising taxes. you are raising taxes on us. raise them on somebody else but not me and the big shock in your life will be if you are elected to the knight state senate and you try to do that if the u.s. chamber, grover norquist are you guys give your support to will jump out immediately and say you are raising taxes. six years from now someone was will accuse you of raising taxes

by closing those loopholes and you will say paul told me that was true. i lived through this proposal. you are raising taxes and otherwise you can generate the money. >> moderator: we are going to move onto something else but go ahead. cruz: i think mr. sather and i have different definitions of raising taxes. if you eliminate loopholes and don't glover raise that is raising tax but if you eliminate loopholes and you lower rates so that the tax rates are not going up that is not raising taxes but you look historically, every time that has been done revenue goes up and i am all for increasing revenue through growth. small businesses are doing better and more people have jobs and they are producing more tax revenue goes up but not by just -- dashing up rates. sadler: is mature every time you take away someone's exemption and they are paying taxes that they didn't pay before they will

say you raise my taxes? cruz: it's true if you don't lower the marginal rate but if you eliminate its action and lower the rate the amount of tax paid on that income can be the same. that is not raising taxes if you are writing a check for the same amount. sadler: not too but if you lowered shelley's taxes and raised my deduction that would be a tax increase would nick? >> the. >> moderator: this is very important and interesting but we do want to take advantage of the time we have left to talk about a few other things and we are going to get back to the policy discussion in just a minute that what we want to do right now is to you both of you an opportunity to compare your record so based on a coin toss, tell us why you believe you would be the better senator for texas. cruz: there are two approaches to the economy. we can go down the road of the obama democrats with more spending, higher debt, higher taxes and more regulation of the

economy and our lives. we tried that for three and a half years and it does not work. the economy is struggling. the median income in this country has gone down $4000 under president obama. the other approach is the approach by ronald reagan. lower taxes, restrain the growth of government spending, reducing regulation and empower small businesses and empower entrepreneurs. i'm proud to have the support of the national federation of independent business of texas association of business and the u.s. chamber of commerce, small business owners in texas because my focus is going to be helping small business owners create jobs and that will help to turn our economy around. >> moderator: mr. sather why would you be the better senator? sadler: sadler: i've ask it on the things he is talked about. i have been in the legislature and i've passed the bill.

i left when my youngest son was involved in an accident i chaired a number of committees and served on the legislative budget. i am the co-author of the education code. i pass the largest property taxes in the history of our state. i passed health insurance for public school employees for the first time in history the state. i is named -- for that. since then i've been involved in the wind industry and in that capacity i have also governor run back republican governor kansas asked me to help solve the preservation and kansas and i did. i helped negotiate that. funner mary fallin a republican in oklahoma's asked me to be serving on the energy board. i went to morocco and made a memorandum of understanding between morocco and the state of texas. i had had the experience and i've done the things he is talked about doing. >> moderator: we are going to

move onto more policy discussion so from the economy now we are going to move onto health care and what kind of system we should have here in the state. we asked voters and here's what they told us. >> the federal health care plan known as obamacare is the right direction. we need a conference of health care plan. i'm a freelance artist and for many years i haven't had insurance and there are a lot of other people that don't have insurance. i think it's wonderful that people can be supported. >> obamacare actually requiring citizens to purchase a product is a little bit too much. >> i think throwing the whole system in the garbage and starting over. >> moderator: >> moderator: some opinionated voters there. we are going to start our discussion on health care and first a question from ross to mr. sadler. >> mr. sadler texas has many -- many doctors who were not take medicaid patients.

how would you propose to solve that for the millions more who are supposed to be added to the medicaid rolls? sadler: dr. shortage is always an issue and we have to do we can to make sure we keep as many medicaid patients as possible. you hear a story that comes from the doctors saying they want to medicaid but if you talk to the people that are involved as medicaid, parents with children that are involved or the cancer patients that are dependent upon it, they say they have plenty of doctors and they are getting great medical care. there is always a concern but the fact of the matter is you hear different stories depending on who you talk to and i don't know the surveys that we have seen by the physicians truly represent the actual numbers. i'm not sure there's a low participation rate in the survey but that being said making sure medicaid reimburses the benefits and the payments that are

necessary we reimburse the hospitals that we should, i foster that in rural hospitals and understand what that means. those payments are important. >> moderator: thank you. >> been mr. christie think the government has a responsibility to provide access to care for those people we are adding to medicaid and if so how do we do that? cruz: meditate -- medicaid has been and problem and we need to continue to honor that commitment. it's another entitlement careening towards insolvency and again harry reid and the democrats in the senate are doing nothing to step up and solve the problem and preserve medicaid. beyond that, how do you deal with low-income texans who earn too much income to qualify for medicaid and yet not enough income to be able to purchase health insurance themselves? i think the answer is free-market reform and in

particular allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. if we create a 50 state national market, that won't mean texas will have available to them a lot more low cost catastrophic health insurance plans and the biggest barrier to access right now is the cost of insurance is too high. we create a national market we can lower the cost dramatically and expand access allowing texans to purchase health insurance. matt we will continue with this line of questioning and peggy will take this a bit further. >> mr. cruz you said previously would be cheaper for people to go to emergency rooms to get health care than to add them to the expansion of the program. what evidence do you have to support that? cruz: the contest of that question i was asked what his save money for everyone to expand medicaid and put a large portion of additional texans on medicaid and my answer was no comment, it is not a cost date the to do that.

the answer for those individuals is what ross and i were just talking about, have a free-market reform to create a 50 state national market so people can afford health insurance. that is a far better way than putting them on government provided single-payer health insurance. >> moderator: how do you know they would be able to afford the cost of insurance that would be available in a 50 state market? cruz: you reduce the barriers and if we reduce the mandates that are driving up the cost of health insurance and with the availability of low cost health insurance, the basic principles of supply and demand operate in that market as with any other. the cost drop a lot more people can afford them. sadler: it's not working. market hasn't any other market health care costs will go down but we know and the citizens know that is not true. they're going up. i don't care if you do 50 states or whatever, but the fact is that you are going to have people in this country who

cannot afford the health care and you're going to have children that are in need of coverage. i have seen them. i have been with them and it's devastating to the families. i met a couple in georgetown. he is a drug rep, makes six figures and his wife is a doctor. they had a child with -- syndrome. that child is having to qualify for medicaid simply to pay his hospital bills to stay alive. medicaid is there as a safety net because the costs are so great and families need it. simply doing a free-market solution is not working now. i'm not saying you move to a single source payment but we have got to fund medicaid. we have to do that and if you want to talk about raising taxes, i'm not afraid of that. there are things in this country that are too important to do away with. social security, medicare and medicaid are too important for us to let loose because someone fetters away your right on

taxes. i'm not afraid of. >> moderator: thank you. we have one more question on health care and i'm going to ask if you could just be brief on this so we can at least speak briefly about foreign-policy. this question first for mr. cruz. as you know there has been a big discussion about women's contraception of the federal level but an employer who personally opposed insurance that covers birth control be required to offer contraception coverage to female employees or should individual employers have the right to decide and deny that coverage? should all women get the same thing? cruz: of course. the federal government should not be forcing catholic hospitals and catholic charities to violate their religious beliefs. this is an issue that is specific to a lot of demagoguery. it is not about denying contraceptives.

>> moderator: under an insurance plan. cruz: it is really quite striking, it's the democratic party for years was proud to be the first major party to nominate the first two catholics to be a candidate for president of the united states and i would ask, what would john f. kennedy think of a president who says that catholic hospitals and catholic charities change their religious beliefs or i will use my power is present to shut down your hospitals. >> moderator: you believe an entity that does not believe in contraception should have the right to say no? cruz: i believe the first right in our bill of rights is -- the solicitor, over and over i was proud of the state of texas in front of the u.s. supreme court and i think it's tragic present a prominent national democrats are stepping on the religious liberty of catholic charities and catholic churches. i think that's wrong.

we should be standing for everybody's religious liberty. dodd mr. sadler the same question. should employers make the decision to cover contraception or should it be across-the-board? sadler: i think women should have the right to contraception regardless and this issue has largely been resolved in my mind i think. i think this is an easy decision. women have the right to contraception. it's a family issue and a personal issue and it's a health issue. how many times have we heard mr. cruz blame the democrats? do you want to know is wrong with this country? we spend so much time blaming each other. we can talk civilly to each other and find bipartisan solutions if we want to but you have to send the right people to washington to do it. >> moderator: thank you very much. finally now we are going to take a few minutes that remain and talk about foreign-policy.

>> a lot of job including the jobs -- [inaudible] >> the there should be no cuts as far as our defense of our country is concerned, none whatsoever. >> our defense spending is in the trillions. i don't begin it's to be in the trillions. >> israel is our ally and has been our strongest ally in the region. i don't think necessarily we should -- but we should stand behind our allies. >> if the united states participates in this combat that is only going to drag every other superpower in and it can quickly escalate. >> to me it's just option z. >> moderator: pedro rojas has a question for mr. cruz. >> as you know we hear reports of cuts -- if they die soon should the u.s.

change its policy? [inaudible] cruz: it depends what happens. fidel castro dies he has been a tyrant but his brother raul is still a dictator ruling cuba and i hope if and when fidel castro dies, and he seems to have defied all expectations at this point, i don't think we should change our foreign policy with cuba unless and until they stop being an oppressive totalitarian state that violates the rights to speech that imprisons and tortures its citizens and i'm hopeful when fidel castro dies and it may take raul castro dying as well but we will see freedom come back to cuba. sadler: i agree with him, i do. there are reasons why the embargo is in place and i actually agree them. with them.

i think you have to see what comes after and see what our policies are going forward. >> moderator: thank you very much. peggy now has a question for mr. sadler. >> thousands of people have been killed in the mexican drug war. which you support an increase in the presence of the national guard on the u.s.-mexico border? sadler: you know we did that. we have 26,000 more patrol agents during this sequestration and added 1200 national guard troops. we have a right as a sovereign nation to defend our border and defend our citizens and we should. that is why we have this border. this is a very complex issue in many respects. it takes cooperation between the united states and mexico. as you know there was an agreement back in 2008 i believe it was between the united states and mexico where we helped with technical support and aircraft to help with the war on drugs

and a cartel in mexico. this is something we have to continue but i want to say this because we are stuck in the stereotypes in this day. el paso, the people of texas don't know this, el paso is the safest city in america for a city of its size. we have saved cities and communities all along our border. this is a great economic engine for us. these are great communities. we have to stop thinking in terms of such violence in el paso because it's not the truth was going on in that part of our state. >> moderator: there are concerns however on increase in the national guard. cruz: if it's necessary and needed and we can help and assist in curtailing the drug activity absolutely, we should. we have a sovereign right to protect our border and our citizens but we should do it in cooperation with mexico. >> what do you think about this? cruz: at a party state we which

we should triple the u.s. border control because we have to get serious and solve the problem of security at the border. the question he raises a very important question. mexico is a great and mighty nation and it is tragic what is happening in mexico. it's tragic. i was visiting with a mexican businessman several weeks ago who described to me how he'd received from the drug lords a letter that details where everyone of his grandkids have been for the past week minute by minute. it is tragic what is happening in mexico and i think the united states should work cooperatively with mexico to help mexican government solve this problem, stop the violence and stop the drug lords who are terrorizing so many innocent citizens. >> the national guard as well? cruz: . >> for the mexican military? cruz: the danger of funding is unfortunately one of the problems mexico is dealing with this corruption. it is still in peril right now in the drug war and i don't

think we should be sending money when there is a risk of corruption but i think we should work cooperatively to help solve the problem. >> we have had this agreement in place and it has worked well. i think we have great whoppers with their past president of mexico and a pink hour new president will support as well. >> moderator: in a few minutes we have had left we want to hear from each of you and we want you to tell the voters about one personal decision that you have made that exemplifies the kind of character that you would be taking to the u.s. senate. you each have a minute so mr. cruz you can go first. cruz: i support to decisions. blind, there's so there is so much partisanship right now in washington and it is relatively rare to see leaders who are willing to stand up to those in their own party. when i was the solicitor general surfing the biggest fight in my tenure was a case where the world united nation trying to buy the u.s. justice system and

the president of the united states u.s. a republican issued an order to the state of texas to remain a world court and the solicitor general i was proud to go before the u.s. supreme court, oppose the republican president of the united states in the state of u.s. sovereignty. the second decision that would point to is how we conducted this campaign from day one. their career politicians in both parties in washington who think they are above the law who make decisions to get elected and reelected. are campaigned is based on grassroots. we have hundreds of vfw halls and denny's and it has been the grassroots men and women across texas who work for the people of texas. >> moderator: thank you mr. cruz. mr. sadler what idiot decided or done in your life that you think exemplifies the character you would take to washington? sadler: character is formed over a lifetime and my mother and father -- in still some great

things and qualities in qualities and tried to teach me about life but honestly the one that i think probably tested her family's character more than any was the injury to our youngest son when he was involved in -- when you have a child that has been seriously injured and was in a coma for four and a half days and your life is put on hold, and he faced the prospect of losing the child you love, where do you priorities like? from a personal character standpoint that is the most important thing that has happened in all of our lives and our family. character and integrity is all you have. being chairman of the committee putting through legislation and doing the things that mr. cruz talks about requires character every single day. you don't get chairmanships without having that character.

that his experience that has value for state and has value for nation. i hope the people of texas will take a look at that because it's very important. >> moderator: i'm told we have a minute and a half left for the just works out this way sometimes. cruz: does that ever happened? >> moderator: occasionally but not often. in the last minute and a half we have, if you go to washington you'll take many skills with you but there is always a learning curve on something and something that's going to be -- you will have to rely on others to get up to spit. what is the one thing mr. cruz you will have to lean on some of the colleagues, some policy issue where you will need help and you want somebody to help you? cruz: as you point out washington is a complicated place in a place that has been broken for a long time. time. i will tell you what i've been doing for the past several months on the campaign is seeking advice from those who

have been out there seeking advice from senator john cornyn, seeking advice from senator kay bailey hutchison and advice from former senators. they have all given me their insight on how to defend texas and how to stand for free-market values. >> moderator: is there something you want to learn more about where the basis not where he wanted to be. cruz: i'm trying from their experience in serving in the u.s. senate. i have not served in the u.s. senate and neither has mr. sadler. the individual people people in that institution and my intention if and when i'm elected in november is to put my nose down, roll my sleeves up and do the hard work it will take. >> moderator: mr. sadler how would you get up to speed and there's a policy area where you would have to lean on your colleagues? sadler: [inaudible] we don't have those things.

i have never been critical of mr. obama or mr. romney on foreign policy because i think it's important no inner talking about. as a united states senator you need to know when to keep your mouth shut. we are privy to everything they know so that's an area where i would look forward to having the opportunity to learn more about. >> moderator: thank you very much and thanks to you candidates for joining us into my colleagues as well for this texas debate. we will make this program available on texas debate.org. monday, election day is tuesday, november 6. >> you need to do a better job of explaining an record because you are really messing up my record. apparently you are looking at somebody else and it is a shame. senator the people of the state of florida are tired of you saying one thing to them and

going back to washington d.c. and voting with barack obama 98% of the time. they are tired of that. they want you to look them in the eye and tell them what you're going to do for them instead of what you are going to do for barack obama. >> senator 30 seconds. >> is that the only line that you have memorized? [laughter] >> let me tell you that violence against women, for you not to have produced in the house where we were trying to produce it in the senate -- here we are in 2012 and it is true, you voted -- >> you had your turn. >> as forcible rape. it seems to me that rape is rape.

coming up in 20 minutes from now at 7:00 eastern on c-span2, the debate in the north carolina governor's race. today president obama campaign in iowa colorado and nevada. the president addressed about 16,000 people.

♪ ♪ >> hello colorado! [applause] thank you. are you fired up? are you ready to go? are you fired up? are you ready to go? i am fired up. thank you so much everybody. can everybody give a great round of applause for -- [applause] we have got good friends here today.

your outstanding governor john hickenlooper. one of the best governors in this country, michael bennett. outstanding congressman diana degette. your wonderful mayor and my campaign cochair and former mayor. and all of you were here which makes me excited. this is the second stop on our 48-hour marathon extravaganza fly around. we are pulling an all-nighter. no sleep. quite a bit of coffee. we just have come from iowa and after this -- did we come from iowa? we are on our way to visit nevada. we are going to go to florida

and we are going to go to virginia. we are going to go to ohio. and i'm going to stop in chicago. [cheers and applause] to vote. before this 48-hour day is done. i can tell you who i am voting for. it's a secret ballot. michelle said says she voted for me. that is what she said. so we can vote early in illinois just like you can vote early in colorado and i have come back to colorado and this may not the last time you will see me. [cheers and applause] i have come to ask you for your vote. i have come to ask you to help me keep moving america forward. [applause] we now have gone through three

debates, months of campaigning, way too many tv ads. oh yes. we got an amen over here. you have heard now governor romney's sales pitch. he has been running around saying he has a five-point plan for the economy. don't boo, vote. vote. that is the way to show your opinion, is to vote. that is not a five-point plan governor romney. it's a one-point plan. they pay lower tax rates than you do, outsource more jobs and let run -- wall street run while. at this plan sounds familiar it's because we tried it. we tried it in a the decade before i took office and it led to falling income and record deficits and the slowest job growth and half a century and

the worst economic crisis since the great depression. we have been working for four years to clean up this mess that these policies left behind. governor romney knows this. he knows his plan isn't any different than the policies which led to the great recession so in the final weeks of his election, he is counting on you to forget what he stands for. he is hoping that u2 will come down with a case of what we like to call romney should. [applause] here's hoping you won't remember his economic plan is more likely to create jobs in china than here in the united states because he has moved profits and jobs overseas. he is hoping you your number he wants to give millionaires and billionaires at 250,000-dollar tax cut because the only way he can pay for it is by raising the deficit or by raising your

taxes. he is hoping you will come down with a severe case of romnesia just before you cast your ballot. that denver i want you to know this. if you feel any symptoms coming on, you start feeling oh i have a -- i have headaches, and my eyes are getting blurry, it might be romnesia but don't worry, obamacare covers preexisting conditions. [cheers and applause] we can make you well. there is a cure, colorado as long as you vote. [applause] there is a cure. now, we joke about romnesia but all this speaks to something that is essential to your choice and that is trust. when you choose a president you

don't know what is going to become of it. when i was running a 2008, you didn't know necessarily that we would see a financial system that would completely implode and we didn't know the auto industry might not go under and we didn't understand what might be happening with the arab spring. but what you are voting on is someone who you thought you could trust to work for you. to keep you in mind every single day. trust matters. you know, and you have seen colorado over the last four years that i mean what i say. i do what i say i'm going to do. [applause] we haven't finished every thing that we want to get done. that is why i'm running for second term but every single day that i step foot into the oval office i'm fighting for your families and with your help i

can keep up with the major commitments we made. i told you we would end the war in iraq in the end it. i said we would end the war in afghanistan and we are. i said we would refocus on the terrace who attacked us on 9/11 and now we have got a new power -- tower rising above the new york skyline. osama bin laden is dead and our heroes are coming home. i have kept those promises. [cheers and applause] i promise to cut taxes to middle-class families and small businesses and we have. i promised and taxpayer-funded wall street bailout for good, and we did. i promised to repeal "don't ask don't tell," and today you can't be kicked out of the military because of who you are or who you love. [cheers and applause] ipad on american workers and american ingenuity and we saved

the dying auto industry and put it back on top of the world. on issue after issue we are moving forward. after losing 9 million jobs in the great recession businesses have added more than 5 million new jobs over the past. manufacturing is coming back to our shores in the unemployment rate has fallen. home values in home sales are rising. our assembly lines are humming. we have a long way to go colorado but we have come to far to turn back now. we have got to keep moving forward with the policies that are giving us out and that is why i'm running for second term as president of the united states. [cheers and applause] now -- [chanting] four more years. four more years.

four more years. >> the reason i want four more years is because i have got a plan that will actually create jobs, planned that will actually create middle-class security and unlike mitt romney i am proud to talk about what is in my plan. [cheers and applause] because it actually adds up. go to barack obama.com/plan and share with your friends, share it with neighbors and share with co-workers. there are still people out there who are trying to make up their minds. some of you may be trying to make up your mind. no, no, somebody may have dragged you hear. maybe your said i'm sorry, you have got to comport to maybe your girlfriend is trying to knock some sense into you and said oh no you have got to come to the rally.

so i wanted to compare my plan to governor romney's. see which plan you think is better for you. see which plan is better for america's future. look, i want to end tax breaks for companies who send jobs overseas but i also want to reward manufacturers creating jobs right here in the united states. i want to cut our oil imports in half by 2020. we are going to develop additional sources of energy and today we are less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in the last two decades. but it's not enough just to tip produce more oil and natural gas. we also need to increase fuel standards on trucks and cars are your cars will go further on a gallon of gas. i want to build on the progress we made with clean energy. i want fuel-efficient cars and long-lasting batteries and wind turbines manufactured here.

i don't want them manufactured in china. i want the manufactured here in the united states. i want the manufactured right here in colorado. right here in america. and by the way it will be good for our environment. it will help preserve the incredible beauty of the state. we can do that. i want to make it a national mission to educate our kids better than anyone else in the world. [cheers and applause] i want to hire workers at community colleges to get the skills that businesses are hiring right now. i want to keep tuition growth low and cut in half over the next 10 years. we can do that. [cheers and applause]

my plan will actually cut the deficit unlike governor romney's. it will actually cut the deficit by $4 trillion of the next 10 years but we have to balance the budget. we also need to make sure there is a wealthier paying a little bit more so we can afford technology and research that will keep new jobs and businesses coming to america. i will never turn medicare into a voucher. [cheers and applause] no american should spend their golden years at the -- of insurance companies. and i will use the savings that we get from ending the war in iraq and afghanistan to put our people back to work doing nation building here at home. repairing our roads, repurchase in our schools and extending broadband lines into rule committees and making sure one of veterans come home that we are hiring them and they are getting the same kinds of opportunities that they deserve because they shouldn't have to

fight for job when i come home after fighting for america. that is my plan. [cheers and applause] that is the plan we need for colorado. that is how you build a strong economy that has good middle-class jobs. that is how you encourage new businesses to start right here and that is that you help small businesses and that is how you increase take-home pay. that is that you build an economy where everybody will who works hard has a chance to get ahead. that is all we can do. but right now it's up to you colorado. right here, right now, today. [cheers and applause] you will choose the path we take. it's up to the young people to make sure that they continue to have opportunities to go to college, to get a good job.

it's up to the not so young people to choose, including me, choose what we leave behind for future generations. you can choose the top down policies that got us into this mess or you can choose the policies that will keep on getting us out of this mess. you can choose the foreign policies that are reckless or you can choose strong steady leadership that we need in the world. you can choose to turn back the clock 50 years for women and immigrants or you can stand up to that basic principle that we are all created equal. [cheers and applause] and no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter who you love, here in america you can make it if you try. [cheers and applause] colorado, we have been through

tough times but the american people are always tough. we always bounce back. because we pull together, because we look after one another. we don't turn back, we go forward. we don't leave anybody behind. we pull them up with us. in america our destiny is not written for us, it is written by us and we are going to write the next chapter together and that is why i am asking you for your vote. [cheers and applause] and if you give me that vote colorado, you will have a president who hears your voice, a president who fights for your family, a president who spends every waking hour trying to make your lives a little bit better. [cheers and applause] i believe in you, colorado and i'm asking you to keep believing in me. if you are willing to roll up your sleeves with me, few are willing to work with me and knock on doors with me we are

going to win colorado again. we are going to win this election. we are going to finish what we started. we will remind the world by the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ..

>> moderator: over the next hour, get to know both

candidates and where they stand on the issues important to you and our state. ♪ >> moderator: good evening, thank you for joining us for this third and final televised debate for governor. i'm david crabtree with warl's chief laura leslie and kent smith here asking questions tonight. the candidates are here to let us know specifically what their vision is to move north carolina forward for the next four years. we welcome all of you, and we thank you for joining us. this live debate is televised all across north carolina so for those of you from murphy to manio, we appreciate you being with us tonight, we think, and we are confident, it's a night of information for those of you who either have already voted or plan to vote on november 6th. before we start, let's meet the nominees because, as i said, one

of them will be our next governor. walter dalton, finishing the first term as lieutenant governor. he started in 1976 as a state senator, serving six terms representing rutherford and cleveland counties. pat mccrory served seven terms as the queen city's leader beginning the political career in 1989 as a city councilman. a few moments ago, we flipped a coin to see the order of how questions would be asked tonight, who answered first, and who would have the last word in closing statements. mr. mccrory won the coin toss. laura? >> first question about economy and unemployment, the one issues for voters for the last couple years as you're well aware. north carolina has the highest

unemployment rite gnat country, and we realize as governor, of course, you can't make law, but realistically, what can you do to fix the problem, and what would you do in the first month? >> i think north carolina has to get into the energy business, and we've sat on the sidelines too long regarding natural gas exploration and offshore drilling, whereas others moved quickly. those have lower unemployment, contributing to the nation's energy independence which north carolina ought to participate in. the second thing to do is reform our tax system to make it more competitive, at least with our neighboring states and other states throughout the united states of america. the third thing we must do is work on regulations. as i traveled the state, including here in rocky mountain north carolina, i'm often told regulations are strangling small businesses throughout north

carolina, that currently, north carolina government treats business as an adversary opposed to a customer and tell me they take small business and mid-sized businesses for granted. the last thing i want to do is completely reform our education system from pre-k to k-12 to community colleges to our universities to make it more market-oriented so when kinds -- kids are out of school, they have the reading and math skills necessary and the basic skills to get a job. right now, there's a major disconnect, even though we're the fifth highest unemployment rate in the country, the fifth highest unemployment rate in the country, we have employers that can't find qualified employees right here in north carolina, and that's an unacceptable disconnect we've had in north carolina for far too long. >> all four proposals are large scale proposals that take some time to implement. is there something to do in your first month as governor?

mccrory: first of all, what i learned as a mayor is short term remedies don't have long term solutions. one of the things -- reasons i'm talking about big plans is because we're in a pit right now regarding the economy here in north carolina, and as a leader, you need to look at solutions that are not just something that will correct a problem in a month or two, and them you are are right back with the same problem we had before, but long term solutions to a very, very difficult complex problem that we have here in north carolina. >> mr. dalton? dalton: thank you. i want to thank north carolina wesleyan and rocky mountain chamber for hosting this as well as wral. fracking and offshore oil is six to ten years out. we need jobs now. when he talks about his reform of the tax code, he wants to say big corporations pay 0%. he has a tax break for people

worth more than $5 million, the budget and tax center says that raises taxes on 80% of the people in north carolina. working families, the middle class, our senior citizens. when asked his campaign was asked what are the details of that plan, they said they would not give them up, and they were asked why. they said because it's dead on arrival. that's the reason it would be dead on arrival. now, i have a map that brings us back quickly. the problem we have -- we have to reinvent our economy. i'm from a textile town. i remember recessions. orders go down. people laid off, orders come back, people come back to work, but what we saw was fast track trade policies back around 2003-2004 accelerate the loss of our jobs offshore. there's no place to go back to now. at least there's far fewer places to go back to. we have to reinvent the economy. now, i have a specific plan. it is on the internet, walter

dalton.org to put the long term back to work. there's a tax credit for business that hire those people. there is a train-to-hire provision allowing businesses to hire somebody that is on up employment for eight weeks, 24 hours a day -- i mean, 24 hours a week drawing a partial benefit allowing them to test them out to make sure they will do well. other states have saved money by doing that with that partial benefit. it gives a tax break to small business, but it builds jobs for the future. there's a provision there for manufacturing. there's a provision on how to expand our military economy, a provision on keeping our best students coming back to the area they came from revitalizing the rule areas. we have to invest in research. that's how you create jobs of the future. new economies fall and cutting edge technology, and we have to encourage entrepreneurship,

innovation, and creativity. >> moderator: something to follow-up with? mccrory: four years ago, he supported the same policies that was enacted in four years that failed miserably and resulted in north carolina having the fifth highest unemployment rate in the nation. he said it takes five to six years to implement fracking or gas exploration. well, that's what governor purdue said four years ago. had we started that, we would be within a year to do it right now. if you keepedlying -- keep delaying and delaying, we're always five to six years behind other states that have taken the leadership and initiative to take action. >> moderator: very quickly -- dalton: those were my policies brought out after research, best

practices in other states. what i told you is not based op a political poll, not based on talk points, but based on good research and seasonal sis that uses best practices to bring north carolina back. >> gentlemen, you talked about the unemployment rate, 9.6% currently. looking ahead, based on the plans y'all just mentioned, where do you see the unemployment rate being a year from now. mr. dalton, start with you. dalton: if you implement my plan, we can reduce it as much as 2.5%-3%. my plan puts people back to work now. there are jobs out there in allied help. baby boomers getting older. we need nurses, nurses' assistants, therapists, people

in rest homes. grow the military economy. the reset of the equipment, the equipment coming back from iran and iraq is going down, i think, to alabama or georgia. we can do that in north carolina, save the federal government millions of dollars because the big bases are here. biotech, we grew jobs in biotech in the great recession. i have a provision in the plan that takes the growth in taxes -- not new taxes -- the growth in taxes, earmarks those to put them back so they continue to grow that, and that's been a great thing. some of the people on the assembly line are out of work, had an idea all their life. they put it to work, created their own business, and they are thriving, some of them. we need to encourage that. i think we can immediately reduce that unemployment rate rapidly, but in conjunction with that, build the future so north carolina is strong in the 21st

century economy. >> where do you see it being? mccrory: i hope in a year we are at least beating south carolina, my gosh, we should be at least beating south carolina, shouldn't we? i hope in my term we beat tennessee and virginia. businesses are moving to south carolina, tennessee, moving to virginia because we have been a non-business friendly state. under the regulations and taxes mr. dalton supported and help pass during the years he's been in office, and it's important -- employers will not hire someone regardless of a tax credit if you can't find the qualified employees. they will not take someone who doesn't have basic writing skills. i've recommended, in detail, an education plan to have two pathways to success in our education. one path way is a four year

degree curriculum in the high schools, and another pathway is a vocational degree curriculum. we are forcing way too many people to go to college curriculum when many people have skills to rebuild things, repair things, fix things. this is the old-type of thinking, an elitism in education that i think is hurting the marketplace contributing to the unemployment rate in north carolina. >> we'll talk about education, but a year from now, where do you see -- mccrory: we have to beat our competitors. i'm not going to predict the stock market either. if i could, i would be a very wealthy man. >> moderator: talk about education, flowing right into this. it's always on the radar. employment in the north carolina schools for the past five years grew an average of 9,000 net students a year, 45,000 more students; yet, per people

spending in the state is consistently in the lower tier, ouch times, the lowest temperature in the country. my question for both of you, has this state invested, spent too much money for education, and is there ever enough money for education? mr. mccrory? mccrory: great question. the basic truth is is there is no new money if you look at the north carolina budget now until we grow the economy. i'm being straight with the people of carolina. we owe $2.8 billion to the federal government for unemployment insurance. my opponent, when at one time, as budget chairman of the senate, they had over $3 billion surplus, and the leadership under purdue and mr. dalton spent it all, just spent it all with no long term plan in case of a recession. we spent the highway trust fund, spent the reserves, we're in trouble. we have to live with what we

have now. the way to do it is four silos of education right now, pre-k, k-12, community colleges, and universities. as governor, as governor, what i'm going to do is make those four entities start working together instead of fighting each other, and i'm telling you another thing to change. it's called this -- well, this happens not just provide better education, the ipad and technology, but it's also going to help provide education to rural areas and urban areas alike with the best teachers, the best technology, and it will end up reducing costs of education which we have to look at better ways to do things with higher quality. >> moderator: have we ever spent too much for education? is there ever enough money for education? >> dalton: money is fine, i understand that. you talked about business ratings, i want to go back in a

minute because steve forbes ran for president, saying north carolina has the third best business rating, ceo number two, site selection in top five, above south carolina in every one of those. we need to do better. a lot of the economy is that trade policy and the credit policy from the federal government eight years ago, but i say, again, again on the 3,000, he's wrong on that, and the fact check shows that, money for hurricane floyd, a lot to help the rocky mountain audience today. in education, in today's world, we're not recruiting any other state or country unless we out educate them. it's a knowledge-based economy, and we have to invest in education. i'll tell you the cuts that he supported that he'll rubber stamp, if governor, have not helped at all. we have to invest in education.

i have a specific plan that does that. his tracking system defines a 15-year-old career before that 15-year-old has defined him or leers. -- herself. that's not right. i invest in the education, put the money in smart start, happy to have governor hunts' endorsement. he was upset about that. the courts were upset about that saying it was an unconstitutional cut to education. we have to put the money back in. the federal reserve, a most conservative body says that the best dollar you can spend in education is an early childhood education. go to walterdalton.org, you see where i do that. showing we respect teachers, we get them back to the national average on pay, treating them as professionals giving the professional development to take the best practices into the classroom. we will align education both to the needs of the student and to the work force needs of the future. that's the way we'll compete with every other state.

that's the way we will compete with every other country, and that's the way we become a global leader. >> i moderator: in all fairness, you talk about it being a rubber stamp. he's not governor. there's no way of knowing what he's going to support or not support with the legislation so, i mean, that has not happened yet. there's no way for him to literally rabber stamp what they are looking for. dalton: may i speak to that? speaker says he talks to pat every day. that was his quote. i don't know what they are talking about, but i assume they are weighing in on the issues. he ran for governor, has been running for four years, and he never commented on the cults other than by the silence that he was silent, never said he was not for it. >> moderator: mr. mccrory's response. mccrory: i had more paver -- power not being governor. it's amazing. one thing to remind is the

largest cuts in education occurred when governor purdue was lieutenant governor and mr. dalton was the head of the budget committee. we have interest in education. there's no one i know against education, but one of the main responsibilities of the lieutenant governor is to attend community college board meetings and the board of education meetings. his attendance rate less than 40%. when i was mayor of charlotte, if someone did not attend a meeting, two-thirds of the meeting, they were removed from those committees. what we need to do is ensure the lieutenant governor is engaged, and the community college board meetings, and governor purdue in the last three years, the boards of directors, boards of the major constitutions of k-12 commune colleges and our universities has not met for over two and a half years. we need a governor that's going

to bring the people together to have a systematic plan for our students. that should be our objective. dalton: quick response? >> moderator: quick. dalton: the law says that the lieutenant governor and treasurer may appoint a sworn designate to -- we had attendance close to that, made about every vote, an acknowledgement we have other duties. my sworn designee attends meetings when i can't be there. the record in the north carolina senate, 12 # years in the senate, voting record well over 99%. i do a got job with that. that's a bogus hit as far as i'm concerned. >> moderator: before we began tonight, we listened to people

outside talking about their concerns for next governor of the state including a 9-year-old who hand wrote us a note. 9 years old. here for the debate. how can you keep north carolina's budget without raising taxes or cut education? i just wanted to give you an idea that you don't have to be of voting age to be concerned to attend a debate and try to ask a question. >> we have different formats for this, a slightly different question for each of you to respond what you propose so far in the campaign. mr. dalton, earlier this year, you supported a three quarter cent sales tax increase for education. you changed the position since then saying you don't support the increase. you also said we need to spend more on education than we currently are. where would you find the extra money. dalton: first of all, i didn't change my position. i supported the extension of three quarters of a penny.

a penny sales tax running out with the proposal to extend three-fourths of that, the budget was a two year budget. the position was we need to temporarily extend that three quarters of a penny. i never supported it beyond that, and i said as governor, i would not raise the sales tax. if you go to walterdalton.org, look at the education plan, and you see how i fund every bit i talked about. there's a billion dollars out there identified that is real that will fund that without any increase in the sales tax. the only tax, i think, that would be increased is taking back a tax benefit that the republican legislature gave to people making hundreds of thousands of dollars equity owners in things like dental practices, law practices, and things like that. they did not ask for the benefit. when the governor vetoed the budget, it was bought we need money for education. i said, publicly, she should veto that budget and make them

spend that $140 million more wisely. we cut economic development funds, cut a billion dollars out of health care, and they fund $140 million for those making over $1 00,000 not adversely impacted by the economy. the only tax increase in the plan i have, and that's a better use of the money, and i don't think they should have spent the $140 million that way with the other needs. >> mr. dalton, though, more detail backing up to the billion dollars where that money would come from? dalton: the $140 million comes from that, projecting growth at 2.5%. that's $400 million. there was a provision that if you're a small business, and you have to pay for the trademark or logo that the out of state company that i don't i don't owy

has to pay tax in north carolina for that revenue. for whatever reason, i never understood it, they exempted that. that out of state company no longer pays taxes in north carolina, but that small business in north carolina is still paying every penny for that logo. we take that back. we have about a billion dollars on the books in bad debt, taxes that are owed. we collect about $500 million a year, but $500 million comes back on. when i was in senate, i supported technology that is now in play making that much more efficient. i think we can collect $100 million, and keep $100 million off the books if we do that right. that's getting close to it. there's other things in there, streamline sales tax is another one through voluntary compliance, catalog companies, internet companies, no new tax, supposed to be collected, but you cannot require internet companies and catalog companies to collect it.

bricks and mortar companies collecting it, providing jobs, but out of state companies get the advantage. we need help through congress through voluntary compliance. i am very specific. i have detailed plans for economic recovery, education for ethics. i have seen nothing from my opponent detailing anything other than his campaign sayings that they don't reveal the details on the tax plan because it would be dead on arrival. >> we're going to get into that with mr. mccrory right now. the version of the question for you, of course, you said you want to abolish personal and corporate income taxes in north carolina. you pointed out there's no more new money in north carolina, and these two taxes bring in 60 crepts on every dollar the state receives in the general fund. where you find funding to cut taxes? mccrory: let me correct mr. dalton. they were the leading proponents

of the 15% sales tax in connection with. they lectured the entire state, republicans and democrats, for not following their lead, and thankfully no one followed them, republicans or democrats, in accepting that 15% sales tax increase which he now changed his mind on. the initial goal is to update a tax system that's 6 # 0 years old. at a minimum, i want to have income tax and corporate tax be competitive with the neighboring states in south carolina and virginia. tennessee is in a different stratosphere now, but look at all plans with regards to updating our tax system. the current revenue, chairman david hoyle, who worked in the legislature with mr. dalton, is a big proponent of updating and reforming our tax system knowing it's totally outdated. in fact, what we don't need is

piecemeal tax credits anymore he recommends in the plans. it's so confusing now on who gets tax credits, who doesn't get tax credits. let's have a comprehensive reform supported by republicans and democrats alike, and that's exactly what i planned to do as governor is lead that effort to look at a modernization of the tax plan, and it's going to be bipart sapp, has to be in order to get passed. >> just to follow-up, when we talk about tax reform at the legislature, democrats and republicans like to use the term "revenue neutral," that that they want to reform it, but not make it bring in more money. how would that bring in the money to pay for the cuts you're talking about? mccrory: it should be revenue neutral. i'm not asking for money to pour into a broken government system, but what we have to do is i would agree with mr. dalton looking at things like the interpret sales in which it is a disadvantage to bricks and mortar. i hope to get money from gas

exploration in the long term. that's a consumption we can get, and if you look at the states now that are going, the revenue increases, and the goal of tax reform, and the simplification of taxes and decrease in income tax be competitive, then you grow business. when you grow business, you grow revenue and jobs opposed to just asking for more and more taxes. after the 2008 election, the first thing she did with mr. dalton's approval is increase the corporate increase, the income tax, and ask for a sales tax increase. what happened? our employment in north carolina just took a huge dip, and that was not good leadership. >> moderator: if we could, to be as concise as you can in your responses because we could spend an hour on each of the questions tonight, and we want to get to

the voters as many topics as we can. >> a theme of funding source. 180 miles plus of i-95 run through north carolina. it's a major north-south thoroughfare in the state. that's the roadway in need of repairs and upgrades. both of you on record oppose tolls on i-95. where do you find the money for repairs and updecadeses on i-95. mr. dalton, start with you. dalton: thank you. i said tolling should be the last choice i think particularly for existing roads like i-95. look at public, private partnerships, and we have done funds wife to get more of the tax dollars back from the federal government. we've been a donor state sending more money to washington than we get back. those are the avenues i think we

would look at, but very, very quickly, he talks about getting money from gas exploration by the own admission being six to ten years out. i showed how to get a billion dollars, and his plan costs $10 billion -- >> moderator: stay on the topic with all due respect. dalton: i-95, lease purchase, public-private partnerships, get money back from the federal government, prioritize traffic more around the cities, but looking at the logistics tax reforms, go around the state, and talk about these things, but we should give tax benefit for those on the belt line to get them off the belt line on the high traffic times to allow

commuters to travel. >> where do you find the funding resource to upgrade that roadway? mccrory: look at other roads considered for construction, which some areas don't want and where congestion and safety issues are not an issue, and we caught to take the money from other projects to help with i-95 and other major quarters. the other thing recommending for over ten years that since 1988 # it's like -- the equity form does not take into consideration congestion, safety, economic development, or the environment, and what it's doing right now in north carolina, is punishing those cities and towns that have major interstate highways going through them including here in rocky mount because the current formula if this division puts any money into i-95, which is an

enterer state highway -- interstate highway connecting south with the north, that means rocky mount has no money for any other rural road unfair to the other towns and cities along the i-95 corridor, i-26 corridor, the i-77 corridors, the i-87 corridors who are being punishedded for having an interstate highway going through them because of the equity formula. that's got to be changed so we have a separate revenue stream and more equally distributed for those areas that have interstate highways going through them that serve not only all of north carolina, but serve the entire region. i also do agree with some of the private-public partnerships and some of the pay-as-you go funding that south carolina has been doing for five to ten years at this point in time. >> moderator: gentlemen, a lot of voters submitted questions to us on line. this has to do with menial health, and that topic came up time and time again.

it began saying much of the problem of the management of middle health care arose because the consumers of the services and the most qualified have less input than the bureaucrats than who may influence the bureaucrats. how will you target resources officially so they are effectively provided and service providers are effectively qualified. mccrory: first is immediately change a rule governor purdue signed to deal with the federal government literally pushing people out of senior homes and possibly out on to the streets. these are older people, many of them with mental issues, and come january, there could be a major catastrophe now, homes in the rural areas especially, that could close down because the people will be moved out putting more and more pressure on state government. that's the first thing i think we ought to do. the second thing i want to do is

i will not support, right now, immediately getting rid of the land where dick's hospital was. it made noceps where we built a new hospital, close an existing hospital, and gained almost no new beds that made any difference. we also moved beds out of areas where the greatest population is of mental health parties, and where those areas are, those mental health patients are moving -- basically in the jails or in our emergency rooms. this has got to be a comprehensive plan. there is no easy answer, but this will be the most serious issue in addition to dealing with the obamacare situation that the next governor's going to have to deal with. there's been no improvement in the mental health system in the last four years, even though governor purdue promised to fix it. >> moderator: mr. dalton? dalton: opposed the affordable care act, if that actually gives

resources to this type of problem. what has been seen in mental health several years ago, and theyed said it was the way to go, to privatize the mental health system. it's not gone well. it was called divester, and i talked to the doctor in north carolina at the time telling him this is not working, particularly in rural areas. the theory was they would leave the mental health system and form private businesses. i said, yes, they are, in nashville, charlotte, and greenville-spartan. where i live, they left. the police department was the mental health providers, picking them up, taking them to the emergency room, the reason the providers out there, i think, are concerned about this, and we have to len to those providers, but one benefit of the affordable care agent will be to provide more managed care in the mental health arena, and we have to listen to the providers, need to make sure there is managed care out there because these

people can become a threat to the public if they are not on their medication or if someone is not attending to their needs, and with the divester, what you found out was case management was hurt. we have to repair that, and in one way, this is one area i believe it will be helpful. mccrory: we agree to disagree. i strongly disagree with obamacare or what is referred to as the affordable care act. the president refers to it as obamacare. this is something governor purdue and mr. dalton supported from the beginning recommending no changes in the legislation. they did not challenge legally the legislation, and the immac this is going to have on north carolina is going to be dramatic. in fact, i'm very concerned right now, we'll have many businesses right here in rocky mount that can literally go we're not offering insurance anymore. we're going to pay the penalty

of obamacare, and just let the federal government take it over and literally not offer insurance to its employees anymore. the impact of this, the impact of this also on our medicaid system which is already financially struggling in three years could be staggering to the state of north carolina. i do disagree with that. i think the states ought to come up with their own plan as opposed to the federal government having one fit all plan for all 50 states. mccrory: first of all, i think the affordable care -- dalton: first of all, i think the affordable care act is for small business, and i think it's good for the health of the citizens and our economy. the first three years is without cost to the state. well, yes, it's your tax money coming back from washington, d.c.. exactly. i want your tax money to come back from washington, d.c.. i don't want it to go to other states.

first three years without costs to the state. the court held we can opt out at any time. it's little risk. after that, the next six years, 15 billion of your tax dollars comes back into the state. there's an $800 million cost to the state of north carolina, but all in all, i think it helps create jobs giving better health care, particularly for rural areas because that's where a lot of your medicaid base is 689 those rural hospitals operate on a thin, thin margin. this helps them survive, but more than that, it gives mental health parents better care. people can keep their child on insurance until age 26ment being a woman will not be a pre-existing condition because you can get pregnant. there will be no pre-existing conditions so there's a lot of good things there. i think we need to continue to look at it. >> moderator: i urge you, if you can, i know there's a lot to say, but condense to get to more of this, that helps us all, if you can. >> speaking of women's health

issues, this year, state lawmakers passedment -- passed the right to know act, making it difficult for women to get abortions in north carolina. if elected governor, what further restrictions on abortion would you agree to sign? starting with you, mr. mccrory. mccrory: none. >> all right, can't do a follow-up for that one. [laughter] mr. dalton? dalton: i disagree with this restriction. i did not agree with this restriction. i put no further restrictions on a women's right. >> all right. >> moderator: moving on to -- [laughter] a couple issues i want to get into some individual questions. dalton: want us to go longer now? >> moderator: no, no, no, hey, thank you. [laughter] i have a couple questions that are individual questions for you to talk about. first one to you, mr. mccrory,

an umbrella question. i'll try not to take time in asking, but in this particular season, in particular, voters ask you to ask us for transparency. straight answers, no nuancing of words as we've seen in the presidential debates. can you set the record strait as to exactly what your job is, the type of work you do. what's a day like, and if you don't mine, do you make doing this work? i ask this because you worked for fine north carolina companies that have a working relationship with the government, with state government, so why not be open to talk about the specifics if you're the next governor? mccrory: i submitted everything lieutenant governor and others submitted in the past, and that is explaning where i get my income, where the stock ownership is, my wife,

ann, in the audience, we own a 2600-square foot house, two used cars, two years old, paid for, as well as my house. that's it. i have no pension, no government pension, i'm probably going to be working the rest of my life because of that, and i'm proud to work with morgan allen law firm, a great, great firm where i provide business expertise and consultations and strategic planning on policy issues to lawyers, and sometimes lawyers need advice even because they are -- they are lawyers. they need advice from non-lawyers because i have 30 years of business experience. i worked with my brother, phil mccrory. last week, i was in philadelphia doing sales training and consulting in philadelphia with a software firm i've consulted with for four years now. i do a strategic planning model i came up with, similar to a

mckinsey model, a business model to apply to the executive branch. in the executive branch, is we have not had people with business experience and leadership experience i had as major. this executive branch, we need a governor that understands business. we need a governor who knows how to read a balance sheet, who understands operating and capital costs, and unfunded mandates. this is what i did not public and private sector, very, very proud of that, growing up in a family, by the way, where you don't tell each other's salaries. that's what my mom and dad taught me. i'm not breaking my mom and dad's code in that regard. >> all right. mr. dalton, you said you were not at the helm, didn't have the wheel of state government as governor purdue led the state in the last four years so what executive speerches do you -- experience do you bring that qualifies you as the ceo, the governor of this state? dalton: i think my experience

both in the senate and lieutenant governor. when i was lieutenant governor, you don't have much power, but you make of it what you can. i had a small business listening tour to over 25 venues in north carolina, tbu doesn't help to listen if you don't do something. i work to create a small business assistance fund to help small businesses get through the tough times, getting money from the legislature, going to the golden league, getting more money, working with sba to craft something to allow small businesses to access $28 million. in addition, in 2003, i had done the bill, the innovative education act, to create early colleges in north carolina. laid the foundation for those. today, we have 75 early college high schools, the new "new york times" said it's a model for the nation, seven of the top ten high school last year were early colleges. the southern growth policy

counsel gave us innovator of the year, that's 13 southern governors, most republican, gave us that award in the logistics task force. i know the state on proarntions, know every -- appropriations, know every agency, every part of the state. talk about the trarns paraphernalia sigh -- transparency, i've been transparent letting my tax returns seen out this. people know what i'm doing. we know there was a case back several years in the supreme court that he took special interest over a farm family. used the position with the city of charlotte to help a special interest, his employer, against a farm family. what's he doing with the law firm? clients lining up at the door saying he's a rainmaker, what promises are made? that's important. >> moderator: are you a rainmaker, mccrory? mccrory: i love a sale, a great marketer, and we need that, sell north carolina and bring jobs.

your doggum right. >> moderator: you're accused of these things. mccrory: i help client development. i'm in the private sector right now. i'm not working for government, and, by the way, if i don't win the election, i'm going to stay in the private sector. you know, this is what we need to build, build the private sector rather than tearing down the private sector, and it's just ironic that, you know, this is the way business is treated in north carolina. they are treated as the enemy. the only way to rebuild the economy is show the business sector we appreciate them, and that we want the private sector to grow because it's a private sector that pays the taxes for our teachers and our firemen and police officers and roads. this is what we need. dalton: [inaudible] >> moderator: we can debate what promises are made and kept, and if you think they are right they are kept and if he thinks they are. it's not necessarily a right and wrong, but a philosophy. another question for you,

mr. mccrory. given the recent controversy swirling around the republican nominee for state auditor, does she have your support? mccrory: i'm concern about the things i'm reading. i think it's been disadvantageous releasing things while people vote. they are allegations. i'm most concerned about the family members of all those involved who had nothing to do whatever you're reading about, but if there continues to be things and police reports that show behavior that's not appropriate for legislated official, especially regarding if there's false police reports, and we are hearing rumors, but it's hard for me to base any knowledge on unfounded allegations. i will also say this, i will compliment the current auditor at the same time doing a good job. she at least had the courage to stand up to the purdue administration on broken government issues that someone needed to stand up to, and, frankly, she was the only member of the council states who did

stand up to the broken government of both the administrations. >> moderator: as of tonight, it's a wait and see as to whether or not -- mccrory: extremely unfair to make a final decision based upon allegations which i don't have much information on, anne i don't know if you do either, but i care deeply for the families that are impacted. >> to you first, mr. dalton, but it's for both. conventional wisdom says,ing of course, immigration is a federal issue. some took step the of their own like arizona. last month, a federal -- compute -- excuse me --. arizona has show me the papers law. if sphait lawmakers approved a law here in north carolina, would you sign it? mr. dalton, starting with you. dalton: i have to talk to the

law enforcement of the state. we saw them cut highway patrol, losing around 200 positions. anything you do on a legal immigration at the state level is an unfunded mandate. it is a federal issue. i do think the congress needs to take this issue and do something with it, but if we do anything, we're putting a greater burden op our law enforcement officials that are stressed enough dealing with our state law violations so i would consider it. i would have to look at the specific law, the 487g or whatever we did with the sheriff's departments. we're doing that, but i think that was federal money or up to the local governments, but we've cut law enforcement because of the deep budget cuts very deeply. the last schools were canceled, training no troopers to come in, lawing 200 positions. i would talk to the highway patrol, consider it.

i'm not going to give you a definitive answer now. mccrory: based on the decisions of the court, and probably all the way to the supreme court again with the detailed laws, i don't think it's needed at this point in time. wait until those are challenged. as a mayor and governor, i'm sworn not only to uphold the constitutions of north carolina, but i'm also sworn to uphole the constitution laws of the united states of america. as mayor, federal laws are -- were enforced by the local police, and vice versa. if a federal law enforcement official saw something that was a local law passed, they have the authority to pull the person over. there's got to be cooperation whether it's a federal bank robber, local police help with that, and vice versa i do think that i'm a big strong supporter of the 287g program. in fact, i supported sheriff's efforts in our county to use the

287g program because one of the problems we're having right now with the illegal immigration two-fold. one is we do not know the identity of many people in our state because they have four to five to six different forms of identification, and what the 287g program did was make sure if we arrested someone, your sheriff arrested someone, we can find out who they were due to federal crime records. the 287g program is very important. i'm very disappointed our current president is discouraging the implementation. i think the president is wrong on that issue, and i hope that changes. >> moderator: we're going to get into a lightning round, and hopefully the questions elicit shorter, less complex answers. >> gentlemen, you are proud to be public servants. we solicited a number of questions from the viewer, and one of the questions was what

impresses you about your opponent? mr. dalton, what's the one thing that impresses you? dalton: anyone in public service has to be commended for that. he's been dedicated to the public service. >> i liked his idea regarding some of the college prep programs in the community colleges thinking that was a very original idea, and if i become governor, i will proceed with that and try to expand it more rapidly, but, you know, i'm impressed, he's a great family map, and i know the people of his town have a great deal of respect for him, and i respect him and his family for having the courage to run for these elective offices because it's not easy on the family. >> north carolina, gentlemen, a right to work state, meaning workplaces cannot require union unions. should state lawmakers consider

changes to the labor laws? >> my opponent spoke to the aclu to the leaders of the aclu, major labor union in the united states of america here in north carolina, and i guess in a moment of maybe criticism, he's called me the scott walker of north carolina. well, i embrace that for several reasons because i think the right to work status for north carolina is extremely important for ongoing economic development one of the reasons we're still somewhat ranked high as a business friendly state. without that, we'd sink more. the second thing is collective bargaining. we cannot have collective bargaining. our sheriffs, our police chiefs, city managers, mayors would have a terrible time, and the taxpayers' rate would go up. >> moderator: got to stop. got to stop. >> quickly. i have no agenda to change laws

on collective bargaining or right to work. they sent $30 million on the recall, and the state is torn apart. i'll have a labor group because if you allow me a little. >> moderator: almost out of time. let's stop it you would have the group, how about that? stop it with the fact you would have the group. >> advisory group. would love to tell you why. >> moderator: after the debate. [laughter] are there any republicans that you would bring in to cabinet positions or high ranking administration officials in a dalton administration? dalton: i would say so. no names right now. >> moderator: no names? dalton: no democratic names. you talk about creating a frenzy, that would be it. [laughter] >> moderator: yes. mr. mccrory, anybody in the purdue administration in a high

level or cabinet position you would consider keeping? mccrory: i made a point not to promise anybody anything before the election, but i will say this. i will seek advice of the secretary of dot who i think is a fine, fine man and knows a lot about transportation. i'm also going to seek the help of david hoyle who i knowments to believe strongly in tax reform, and the commerce secretary, if i do become elected, there's going to be a need toke a smooth transition with the current commerce secretary seeking assistance in their for help. can't cut it off, keep government running. >> government trying to ban video gaming, and so far, the courts have not cooperated. as governor, would you continue the push for the ban or regulate and tax it? dalton: i've opposed video gaming, voted against video gaming. it's on the way to the supreme court, but if they say that it's legal, we tried two or three

times, i would then look at taxes it. mccrory: i concur with mr. dalton. >> moderator: time for the closing staples -- statements tonight. again, a minute each. coin toss said mr. mccrory has the last word. mr. dalton, 60 seconds. dalton: thank you for hosting this debate, and i want to thank my wife, lucille for love and support, and thank you, all, for watching tonight. this is an important election. do you want big corporations paying zero tax and increasing taxes on the middle class working families, and our senior citizens? do you want to take money from the public schools to fund private schools and home schooling, up the health care of women? if you do, i'm not your candidate. if you want to create jobs now and jobs for the future, protect and improve education, and treat teachers with respect, then --

and if you also want to have women get equal pay for equal work, embrace my candidacy and work together to move north carolina forward. big corporations, special interests pay money for people to fight for them. i'll fight for you, and working together, we'll build a bright future for north carolina. i'm walter dalton, running for governor, and i ask for your vote. >> moderator: mccrory? mccrory: after turning 55 years of age, i got my driver's license renewed at the dmv. when i pulled up, there was a long line out the door. after waiting 35 minutes before i got into the chairs lined up at the dmv, i was sitting there waiting, waiting, and waiting, and i realized two things. one thing was this is that nothing's changed since i got my first driver's license in jamestown, north carolina in 1973 in dmv. the second thing realized is i got to run for governor. we have a broken government in

north carolina. we got a broken economy in north carolina, but north carolina is the best state in the united states of america. we have unlimited resources, unleash resources. under the ground, unleash educational resources, unleash the private sector. that's why i'm running for governor. it's time for a carolina comeback, and that's why i'm running for governor, and i really appreciate the people for having us here tonight. >> moderator: i've been told we have a minute and a half left. one more question to come to. [laughter] then we have to go. it's a serious question that an ethicist posed to me two days ago. how difficult is it to tell the truth with a capital "t" in the world of politics? mr. mccrory? mccrory: not hard for me. my dad passed a week after being elected mayor, and on election night, he was sick, and he hugged me, and said "do what's

right." that's part of the culture that i value here in north carolina, and it's my track record of being a mayor, being a city council member, a husband, and a family man, and i think telling the truth is very, very important, and in doing so, you've got to step on toes and, believe me, i stepped on a lot of toes. >> moderator: politics is tough, how tough is it? dalton: very tough. the north carolina supreme court questioned his veer rasety on the affidavit, but it's critical to be truthful, and i have -- i've got to live within my own skin. i tried to be up front with the people. >> moderator: gentlemen, again, thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you very much. >> we hope the debate helps you make an informed decision about the next governor of our state. >> election day is tuesday, november 6, with early voting underway if tonight helped make you a decision.

>> moderator: take the time to vet if you have not yet, you have a few more days of early voting until the election debate. thank you to wesleyan college for hosting and the rocky mount area chamber of commerce. from of all of us here at the table, laura, ken, thank you for joining us. keep sending us your questions, and we'll find a way to get them answered. >> senator, you need to do a better job of explaning your record because you're messing up mine. apparently, you're looking at somebody else, and it is a shame. senator, the people of the state of florida are tiredded of you saying one thing to them, and then going back to washington, d.c. and voting with braining -- barack obama 98% of the time. they are tired of that.

>> senator, 30 # seconds. >> is that the only line that you have memorized? [laughter] >> are you going to open up to it, senator? >> let me tell you that violence against women for you not to have produced it in the house where we were trying to produce it in the senate is just -- here we are in 2012, and it is true. you voted for a redefinition of rape as forcible rape. seems to me rape is rain. >> with less than two weeks to election day, follow the key house, senate, and governor's races on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org/campaign2012. ..